Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" Supreme > Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Dear Shri Swamis, I believe Vedic evidence does not point to a "nameless" supreme being, rather it points to a supreme being with innumerous names. This is a subtle difference, though, is important enough. I believe that the liberty of calling someone with any name probably comes from the innumerous names and not from the nameless characteristic. The point is, what could be "the" name that could describe the brahman at the best? And from whose perspective? There is a small twist in here. If it is subjective, then there is no argument. If it is objective, human beings "can't" speak for all the other manifestations like animals, plants etc. So, neither being subjective, nor being objective, by taking an intermediatory position i.e from the perspective of "human beings" alone, this question needs to be answered - which basically makes sense. And the answer has been that "Naraanaam Ayanaha ithi Narayana" i.e the resting abode/final destination of all these naras(humans) (ofcourse, there is a lot more explanation to this that is in Mumukshuppadi, but I just gave the gist of the same). Hence Narayana shabdam best describes the brahmam from the "human" perspective, for which, appropriate references from Vedas, smruthis, ithihasas have been taken out by our acharyas and has been proved. Shankara and others never debated, that Narayana shabdam, and hence the Narayana Manifestation, is/isn't the best shabda/form to describe the supreme being. Anyways, that is a separate thread of discussion altogether by itself that is beyond the scope of this subject. Also, we must remember, "we", the followers of the Vedic tradition, believe in, that supreme being that has been defined by our shastras - I request some learned scholars to throw the light on the excellent bramha sutra - "SHAASTRAYONITVAAT". I believe that this sutram clearly draws a boundary around the vedic believers to indicate them that their belief is only to that extent that the shastras expect them to. So, this is not necessarily a belief, to be preached to others(while there is no harm in preaching the fundamental humantary based living style etc). I am eagerly expecting that the great scholars out here would really give us a very good understanding of our tradition from this brahma sutra's perspective. I sincerely apologize for my mistakes and my ignorance. Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jaamaataram Munim Adiyen, Ramanuja Dasan --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, purohit@xxxx wrote: > > Dear Bhagavatars, > > Objectively, all the "Vedic" evidence points towards a "nameless" Supreme > Being who can be called by whatever name one choses. Hence the various sects > can quite justifiably use the very same Vedas to support their claim of > sectarian monopoly on God. >
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |